64GB or 128GB solid-state drive (of which about 25 or 89 GB are usable)

Networking

802.11a/b/g/n with 2x2 MIMO antennas, Bluetooth 4.0

Ports

Mini DisplayPort, headphones, microSDXC, USB 3.0, Cover port

Size

10.82×6.77×0.52" (274×172×13.2 mm)

Weight

1.99lb (0.903kg)

Battery

42Wh

Warranty

1 year

Starting price

$899

Price as reviewed

$1128.99

Sensor

Ambient light sensor, Accelerometer, Gyroscope, Magnetometer

Other perks

48W charger with 5W USB port

The screen resolution, however, is substantially lower than those of its comparably-priced competitors. The touchpads of those covers are wretched (in the Surface review, having used them for a week, I thought they were poor; with several months under my belt, I now think they're downright bad). The processor is underpowered.

But the biggest issue with Surface RT is its operating system: Windows RT. Windows RT can only (officially) run applications using the Metro user interface and the WinRT API. These were thin on the ground when I reviewed Surface RT, and they're thin on the ground today.

Surface with Windows 8 Pro (hereafter known as "Surface Pro") is Microsoft's second computer. It is a straightforward proposition: take Surface RT, give it an Intel processor, a high resolution screen, and stylus support. Next, make all the requisite changes to cope with the greater power consumption and heat output that the x86 processor implies—and all the software compatibility and performance that x86 brings.

Like Surface RT, but a little bit bigger

On the left, Surface RT with the magenta Touch Cover. On the right, Surface Pro with the black Type Cover.

In isolation, the Surface Pro looks indistinguishable from its smaller sibling at first glance. It has the same black VaporMg finish that feels good in the hand and should resist everyday wear-and-tear with aplomb, and it has kept the trademark kickstand with its satisfyingly reassuring snap.

Put them side-by-side and the differences start to appear. The Pro is 4mm thicker, at 13.46mm compared to 9.3mm for the RT. It's 0.5lb heaver, coming in at a hair under 2lb. Its other dimensions are unchanged, with the screen retaining the 10.6 inch diagonal. This has been upgraded, however; it's now a Full HD 1920×1080 device, replacing the 1366×768 unit in the RT model.

Surface RT on the left, Surface Pro on the right.

Closer inspection reveals the ports have been rejigged. The USB port moves from the machine's right side to its left, and although the port isn't the tell-tale blue (presumably to enhance the machine's aesthetics) it supports USB 3.0, compared to the ARM system's 2.0. The microSDXC slot, which in the Surface RT was positioned behind Surface's kickstand, is now more conveniently placed on the right hand side of the machine. It's easier to swap cards, but a little less clean-looking. Also on the right is a mini-DisplayPort, uh, port, replacing the micro-HDMI of the older unit.

The placement of the mini-DisplayPort is inferior. The microHDMI port on Surface RT is more or less where the microSDXC slot is on Surface Pro. This allows the power connector to be attached with the cable extending down, which means the little white LED at the top of the power connector, indicating whether a connection has been made, is visible.

On Surface Pro, if you use the power connector in that orientation it fouls the mini-DisplayPort connector. The power connector can connect in both orientations, so it's possible to use it "upside down," with the cable coming out the top. But then, the LED indicator is no longer visible.

Enlarge/ On the left side of the device we have the USB port and volume rocker.

The placement of other buttons and devices is unchanged. The power button remains on the top right, with a volume rocker and headphone port on the left, a charging connector on the right, and 720p cameras front and rear. The Windows button is centered beneath the screen. And on the bottom there's the cover port, for connecting to the same selection of Touch and Type Covers as the ARM version supports.

Enlarge/ Surface Pro's right hand side, with microSDXC at the top, the power connector in the middle, and mini-DisplayPort at the bottom.

The power connector retains the same magnetic connector, and this too is identical between the devices. Surface Pro's power adaptor is bigger, rated at 48W rather than 24W. It should in principle be able to fully charge the system in under an hour. The adaptor brick also sports a USB port, and can deliver up to 5W to a smartphone or other tablet to charge it.

The 48 W power brick with its USB charging port is an eminently sensible design.

On Surface RT I had consistent issues with getting the power connector to marry properly. Sometimes it would appear to be magnetically latched, but it would actually be slightly skew and fail to charge the machine. The connector on Surface Pro hasn't had the same issue. It's still fiddly, but I no longer receive the false positives. Maybe it has been slightly tweaked to improve the connection; maybe I'm just more familiar with its foibles.

The pen's magnetic connector doubles up as its right click button.

Surface Pro includes one other big feature not found in the RT: an active digitizer in its screen supporting a touch-sensitive pen. Wacom claims it's their technology being used, though there's no immediate indication in Windows of who made the digitizer. The pen has a barrel button and "eraser" tip, and it's pressure sensitive with 1,024 levels.

When not in use, it attaches magnetically to the charging port, with the barrel button serving dual purpose as the magnetic connector. On the one hand this is surprisingly secure; it should be safe to put the Surface Pro into a bag with its pen attached and not find the two are divorced when you get them out. This is fine when you're not charging the computer, but it means every time you plug into the wall you have to pull off the pen.

The docked pen.

This is downright inelegant. It's going to result in unnecessarily lost pens. An integrated pen garage or holster is the better solution.

Ultimately, it makes me think the Surface Pro was something of an afterthought. Microsoft created the basic system design for the Surface RT, and since that has no active digitizer or pen, it doesn't need a place to store a pen. Rather than create a new design specific to Surface Pro's capabilities, Microsoft has performed a minimal modification of the Surface RT design. This precludes any major modifications such as adding slots for pens—and it's why we have the unfortunate mini-DisplayPort location too.

367 Reader Comments

I have to say, for a device ranging from $900 to $1200, to contain only a Intel HD Graphics 4000 card with every configuration is a big let down. Paying that much money for something that can't handle many modern games is a sin, the only other purpose would be to write up papers and surf the web. How is paying $900 for that worth it when you can buy a decent win8 laptop with a Radeon 7600g for around $400?

Would it killed them to put a mini USB port instead of another one trick pony like a propietary power connector?

I mean, the power charger already has an USB port, they might as well charge the damn thing with it.

I think most don't realize that most tablets, like the Asus transformer and ipad, charge over proprietary connectors because they don't charge over 5v. And they get around 17w as well via the charger. If you used plain USB it would take forever to charge, and in the Surface Pro's case, never.

Looks like the Pro won't be redeeming the poor sales of the Surface RT after all. It works, but not well enough to convince people who would otherwise buy a full Win8 laptop, iPad, Ultrabook or RT to buy this instead.

I've been using my Sony VAIO Duo Pro for a while now. At work and at home. (I'm a verification engineer so I'm doing lots of programming but also work in Word/Excel, lots of Outlook, and occasionally need to take handwritten notes.)

The tablet hybrid with x86 Windows is a form factor that I feel works amazingly well. I can use it just as well as a laptop for typing tasks, and then can pick it up as a tablet to access email, calendars, and take notes during meetings. And if during the meeting I have to ssh into a development machine to get some information, I can instantly hop over to Cygwin or NX and do so, and then hop back. And then when I get back to my desk, I can hook it up to an external monitor and use it with Synergy from my desktop machine (and I do).

I actually feel like this is the holy grail of business form factors. Its got the utility of a laptop, the pick up and go mobility of a tablet, and lets me get all my work without having to fuss with multiple devices and segregated data. I can copy something from a terminal in NX and paste it into a OneNote notebook and then annotate it with the stylus.

So, I still don't see how the form factor doesn't work.

I suppose the specific implementation might have issues, but the major sticking points (battery life and touchpad) aren't really an issue for most since I know more often than not, people carry external mice with their laptops, and if you need a device that runs x86 Windows, it's probably likely that you'll be near a power outlet for most of your day and keep it charged more often than not.

Would it killed them to put a mini USB port instead of another one trick pony like a propietary power connector?

I mean, the power charger already has an USB port, they might as well charge the damn thing with it.

I think most don't realize that most tablets, like the Asus transformer and ipad, charge over proprietary connectors because they don't charge over 5v. And they get around 17w as well via the charger. If you used plain USB it would take forever to charge, and in the Surface Pro's case, never.

Exactly, plus having a proprietary connector allows them higher flexibility for dock connections. Could you imagine the Transformer Infinity connecting to the keyboard down with USB?

This is the latest step in a long chain of steps down a path that never made any sense. They're really showing admirable ingenuity and evincing some admirable skill and design talent as they enact each of these steps...but the fact remains that the entire enterprise is ill-conceived.

This is the latest step in a long chain of steps down a path that never made any sense. They're really showing admirable ingenuity and evincing some admirable skill and design talent as they enact each of these steps...but the fact remains that the entire enterprise is ill-conceived.

Can you provide more thoughts please? Why is windows with the option of touch or ms/kb I'll conceived? Why own two devices when you can own just one? I'm a power user in the windows ecosystem that also enjoys the touch consumption paradigm... The only flaw I see is battery life.

Surface limitations are simply the reality of trying to be a jack of all trades.

If you are trying to be both a laptop and a media tablet, you are going to end up mediocre at one (or both) of those usage scenarios.

The best result would come from picking one primary usage mode and building a device that performs excellent in that role first and foremost, then adding some secondary capability from the other usage mode, but only so far as it does not compromise the primary usage pattern.

Microsoft instead tried to meet somewhere in the middle, and ended up compromising both usage modes.

This device was clearly designed by committee and with an objectives to protect its master's sacred (cash) cows. As a result it doesn't do anything well and in my opinion that will be its doom. The tough decisions were not taken (cut the legacy stuff out, simplify and focus on functionality) and they tried to be as many things to as many people. I'm sure it made perfect sense in the marketing department guy's head but its a poor result (again in my opinion).

I've been using my Sony VAIO Duo Pro for a while now. At work and at home. (I'm a verification engineer so I'm doing lots of programming but also work in Word/Excel, lots of Outlook, and occasionally need to take handwritten notes.)

The tablet hybrid with x86 Windows is a form factor that I feel works amazingly well. I can use it just as well as a laptop for typing tasks, and then can pick it up as a tablet to access email, calendars, and take notes during meetings. And if during the meeting I have to ssh into a development machine to get some information, I can instantly hop over to Cygwin or NX and do so, and then hop back. And then when I get back to my desk, I can hook it up to an external monitor and use it with Synergy from my desktop machine (and I do).

I actually feel like this is the holy grail of business form factors. Its got the utility of a laptop, the pick up and go mobility of a tablet, and lets me get all my work without having to fuss with multiple devices and segregated data. I can copy something from a terminal in NX and paste it into a OneNote notebook and then annotate it with the stylus.

So, I still don't see how the form factor doesn't work.

People still don't understand the utility and function of taking hand written notes and annotations with a stylus on a tablet. This effect gets magnified significantly if you take a lot of notes in OneNote. You don't need to convert them to text, but you can still perform text searches against the content. In the case of the Vaio and a couple others like Surface Pro, being able to then drop into Word or Excel and build real documents is a godsend.

I do wish Microsoft had a 3rd cover option, one with a stiff hinge and an extra battery, maybe a couple more USB 3.0 ports. For a really sharp look, they could have made it using a case which made it semi-symmetric out of the VaporMg.

Also, the gripes about the availability of Apps is getting annoying. Sure the quality so far on the Store is very hit or miss (mostly miss) but so was Android's app store at a similar time point. Such gripes ignore I don't know... running the entire catalog of Windows x86 Apps out there the past 15+ years. Clearly I am not counting the small portion of stuff which won't run in 95-XP compatibility mode on Vista/7/8 - it's less than the proportion of Apps lost on Android due to OS version changes - not sure on iOS. Wait, no you can run VirtualBox (or similar) on Surface and have a full Windows 95 - XP OS (or Android x86, or Linux if that is your thing)...

It's really absurd the bad rap x86 tablets get with the insane increase in flexibility for the form factor. At least Peter has the ethics not to be comparing the Surface products against consumption devices like some of the other reviews I have seen.

Would it killed them to put a mini USB port instead of another one trick pony like a propietary power connector?

I mean, the power charger already has an USB port, they might as well charge the damn thing with it.

I think most don't realize that most tablets, like the Asus transformer and ipad, charge over proprietary connectors because they don't charge over 5v. And they get around 17w as well via the charger. If you used plain USB it would take forever to charge, and in the Surface Pro's case, never.

But people forget that the USB Promoters Group improved the power delivery specifications for it.

This is the latest step in a long chain of steps down a path that never made any sense. They're really showing admirable ingenuity and evincing some admirable skill and design talent as they enact each of these steps...but the fact remains that the entire enterprise is ill-conceived.

Can you provide more thoughts please? Why is windows with the option of touch or ms/kb I'll conceived? Why own two devices when you can own just one? I'm a power user in the windows ecosystem that also enjoys the touch consumption paradigm... The only flaw I see is battery life.

Because there are hard limits on what can be accomplished within the tablet form factor, in terms of 1) the power and heat considerations of the chipsets associated with full desktop OS operation and the screen resolutions it can support; 2) the way desktop software is built, with its dependence on large hard drives and high-level build languages with runtime interpreters, and dependence on multithreaded processes and hardware graphics; and 3) the requirements of keyboard-and-mouse style interfaces built into applications.

For more than ten years the market for devices that try to work within these constraints has been meager, for a very good reason: it's too severe a set of constraints to allow the creation of any kind of desirable or useful device. The only company to get anywhere with tablets was the one that looked at the crippling constraints I've mentioned and decided that it couldn't be done and the only way to get around the problem was to start over with a phone OS (which had already developed a touch-based, menu-free idiom created for fingers and small screens) and use it as the basis for a handheld tablet device. The iPad thrived because of what it didn't include. These new devices ignore that crucial lesson.

It's like Apple invented the picnic, and Microsoft decided that picnics would be much better if you could bring the whole kitchen and dinner service with you.

This is the latest step in a long chain of steps down a path that never made any sense. They're really showing admirable ingenuity and evincing some admirable skill and design talent as they enact each of these steps...but the fact remains that the entire enterprise is ill-conceived.

Can you provide more thoughts please? Why is windows with the option of touch or ms/kb I'll conceived? Why own two devices when you can own just one? I'm a power user in the windows ecosystem that also enjoys the touch consumption paradigm... The only flaw I see is battery life.

Because there are hard limits on what can be accomplished within the tablet form factor, in terms of 1) the power and heat considerations of the chipsets associated with full desktop OS operation and the screen resolutions it can support; 2) the way desktop software is built, with its dependence on large hard drives and high-level build languages with runtime interpreters, and dependence on multithreaded processes and hardware graphics; and 3) the requirements of keyboard-and-mouse style interfaces built into applications.

For more than ten years the market for devices that try to work within these constraints has been meager, for a very good reason: it's too severe a set of constraints to allow the creation of any kind of desirable or useful device. The only company to get anywhere with tablets was the one that looked at the crippling constraints I've mentioned and decided that it couldn't be done and the only way to get around the problem was to start over with a phone OS (which had already developed a touch-based, menu-free idiom created for fingers and small screens) and use it as the basis for a handheld tablet device. The iPad thrived because of what it didn't include. These new devices ignore that crucial lesson.

It's like Apple invented the picnic, and Microsoft decided that picnics would be much better if you could bring the whole kitchen and dinner service with you.

The iPad started as a novelty. Many people who own them even now originally considered them as either big iPhones or big iPod touches. IPads developed their software platform from the iPhone library upgraded for new touch targets. I'm typing this on an iPad 1 and it crashes regularly due to lack of memory and horsepower on complex websites.

I say all of that to say MS has more to lose than apple did at any point in apples history. MS has to take legacy along for the ride on this tablet journey until developers grasp the WINRT API and find creative ways of transitioning desktop apps to a touch centric format.

This is surfaces round one.. There's many more rounds (technically and software wise) to go.

This is the latest step in a long chain of steps down a path that never made any sense. They're really showing admirable ingenuity and evincing some admirable skill and design talent as they enact each of these steps...but the fact remains that the entire enterprise is ill-conceived.

Can you provide more thoughts please? Why is windows with the option of touch or ms/kb I'll conceived? Why own two devices when you can own just one? I'm a power user in the windows ecosystem that also enjoys the touch consumption paradigm... The only flaw I see is battery life.

And price. you can get a more powerful laptop *and* a better tablet for the price of that Surface Pro.

This is the latest step in a long chain of steps down a path that never made any sense. They're really showing admirable ingenuity and evincing some admirable skill and design talent as they enact each of these steps...but the fact remains that the entire enterprise is ill-conceived.

Can you provide more thoughts please? Why is windows with the option of touch or ms/kb I'll conceived? Why own two devices when you can own just one? I'm a power user in the windows ecosystem that also enjoys the touch consumption paradigm... The only flaw I see is battery life.

Because there are hard limits on what can be accomplished within the tablet form factor, in terms of 1) the power and heat considerations of the chipsets associated with full desktop OS operation and the screen resolutions it can support; 2) the way desktop software is built, with its dependence on large hard drives and high-level build languages with runtime interpreters, and dependence on multithreaded processes and hardware graphics; and 3) the requirements of keyboard-and-mouse style interfaces built into applications.

For more than ten years the market for devices that try to work within these constraints has been meager, for a very good reason: it's too severe a set of constraints to allow the creation of any kind of desirable or useful device. The only company to get anywhere with tablets was the one that looked at the crippling constraints I've mentioned and decided that it couldn't be done and the only way to get around the problem was to start over with a phone OS (which had already developed a touch-based, menu-free idiom created for fingers and small screens) and use it as the basis for a handheld tablet device. The iPad thrived because of what it didn't include. These new devices ignore that crucial lesson.

It's like Apple invented the picnic, and Microsoft decided that picnics would be much better if you could bring the whole kitchen and dinner service with you.

The iPad started as a novelty. Many people who own them even now originally considered them as either big iPhones or big iPod touches. IPads developed their software platform from the iPhone library upgraded for new touch targets. I'm typing this on an iPad 1 and it crashes regularly due to lack of memory and horsepower on complex websites.

I say all of that to say MS has more to lose than apple did at any point in apples history. MS has to take legacy along for the ride on this tablet journey until developers grasp the WINRT API and find creative ways of transitioning desktop apps to a touch centric format.

This is surfaces round one.. There's many more rounds (technically and software wise) to go.

The iPad only started as a "novelty" in terms of tech press and consumers who didn't yet understand what the device was all about and what it was capable of. Apple knew exactly what they were doing (just as they did three years before when Jobs said "Today, Apple re-invents the phone," and Ballmer and everyone else scoffed but it turned out to be literally true). Just because the pundits and analysts were confused doesn't mean that Apple was confused, or that the sales didn't skyrocket immediately. I'm saying that (by contrast) Microsoft doesn't really know what they're doing, since (as I said originally) this whole thing is ill-conceived; based on a misunderstanding of "the tablet market" (which is really just the iPad market).

And, you can say it's "round one," but if nobody buys these devices of Microsoft's there won't be many more rounds. They're really good at spending money without making money (XBox etc.) but even Microsoft has limits.

This is just a trial run. Once Haswelll comes out this will be on par with RT in quietness, battery life, etc, while absolutely crushing anything out there in pure performance.

Did you even read the article?

It's the overall concept that's flawed. It's lousy as a tablet and the design is such that you need to use it on a table. It's not even usable on your lap as a laptop. So just what are we sacrificing cost and storage space and convenience for?

No amount of performance at any volume and temperature is going to change these facts.

This is the latest step in a long chain of steps down a path that never made any sense. They're really showing admirable ingenuity and evincing some admirable skill and design talent as they enact each of these steps...but the fact remains that the entire enterprise is ill-conceived.

Can you provide more thoughts please? Why is windows with the option of touch or ms/kb I'll conceived? Why own two devices when you can own just one? I'm a power user in the windows ecosystem that also enjoys the touch consumption paradigm... The only flaw I see is battery life.

Because there are hard limits on what can be accomplished within the tablet form factor, in terms of 1) the power and heat considerations of the chipsets associated with full desktop OS operation and the screen resolutions it can support; 2) the way desktop software is built, with its dependence on large hard drives and high-level build languages with runtime interpreters, and dependence on multithreaded processes and hardware graphics; and 3) the requirements of keyboard-and-mouse style interfaces built into applications.

For more than ten years the market for devices that try to work within these constraints has been meager, for a very good reason: it's too severe a set of constraints to allow the creation of any kind of desirable or useful device. The only company to get anywhere with tablets was the one that looked at the crippling constraints I've mentioned and decided that it couldn't be done and the only way to get around the problem was to start over with a phone OS (which had already developed a touch-based, menu-free idiom created for fingers and small screens) and use it as the basis for a handheld tablet device. The iPad thrived because of what it didn't include. These new devices ignore that crucial lesson.

It's like Apple invented the picnic, and Microsoft decided that picnics would be much better if you could bring the whole kitchen and dinner service with you.

You can be sure that if people all of a sudden decided that they like picnics better than kitchens and wanted to prepare their food outside instead, then companies would respond by providing some form of food preparation implements that you can use while on a picnic. Like, for instance, a grill set.

What Microsoft did here is respond to a business need. A few of my coworkers use tablets at my job. They all do so as a compliment to their desktop machines. They're all iPads. What they do on them is primarily notetaking, email, calendar, web browsing, word documents and spreadsheets. One even installed a terminal app that lets him SSH into our Linux servers and do development work.

Of them: one got fed up with his iPad because (to use his own words) "it sucks" for content creation (Word and Excel) and hates having to carry a laptop with him as well. One uses his iPad *only* for notetaking, email, and calendar stuff (as far as I know). He carries a laptop for everything else. The third will use it, as I said, for development work with Apple's Bluetooth keyboard. But, he has lamented the lack of true digitizer stylus input--an area that Apple has famously neglected over the years.

It seems to me that people are trying to use tablets where they'd use laptops instead in a lot of areas. This is Microsoft responding to a market need, not creating a solution for a non-existent problem.

I want a Windows 8 Pro touch-enabled portable device, but it really doesn't seem like there's anything good out there.There's not a single touch-capable device with some kind of high-end graphics card.There's not a single touch-capable device with more than 8gb ram.There's not a single touch-capable device with even 1 TB HD.Every slightly considerable configuration fails at one point. I was really thinking about getting an XPS 12, but the RJ-45 port is a necessity for me, and I don't want to carry an adapter with meI don't have twigs for arms. I'm not afraid of a little sound. I'm not gonna melt that easily.What's the deal OEMs? Are you really that fixated on Apple that you can't differentiate yourselves?

This is the latest step in a long chain of steps down a path that never made any sense. They're really showing admirable ingenuity and evincing some admirable skill and design talent as they enact each of these steps...but the fact remains that the entire enterprise is ill-conceived.

Can you provide more thoughts please? Why is windows with the option of touch or ms/kb I'll conceived? Why own two devices when you can own just one? I'm a power user in the windows ecosystem that also enjoys the touch consumption paradigm... The only flaw I see is battery life.

Because there are hard limits on what can be accomplished within the tablet form factor, in terms of 1) the power and heat considerations of the chipsets associated with full desktop OS operation and the screen resolutions it can support; 2) the way desktop software is built, with its dependence on large hard drives and high-level build languages with runtime interpreters, and dependence on multithreaded processes and hardware graphics; and 3) the requirements of keyboard-and-mouse style interfaces built into applications.

For more than ten years the market for devices that try to work within these constraints has been meager, for a very good reason: it's too severe a set of constraints to allow the creation of any kind of desirable or useful device. The only company to get anywhere with tablets was the one that looked at the crippling constraints I've mentioned and decided that it couldn't be done and the only way to get around the problem was to start over with a phone OS (which had already developed a touch-based, menu-free idiom created for fingers and small screens) and use it as the basis for a handheld tablet device. The iPad thrived because of what it didn't include. These new devices ignore that crucial lesson.

It's like Apple invented the picnic, and Microsoft decided that picnics would be much better if you could bring the whole kitchen and dinner service with you.

You can be sure that if people all of a sudden decided that they like picnics better than kitchens and wanted to prepare their food outside instead, then companies would respond by providing some form of food preparation implements that you can use while on a picnic. Like, for instance, a grill set.

What Microsoft did here is respond to a business need. A few of my coworkers use tablets at my job. They all do so as a compliment to their desktop machines. They're all iPads. What they do on them is primarily notetaking, email, calendar, web browsing, word documents and spreadsheets. One even installed a terminal app that lets him SSH into our Linux servers and do development work.

Of them: one got fed up with his iPad because (to use his own words) "it sucks" for content creation (Word and Excel) and hates having to carry a laptop with him as well. One uses his iPad *only* for notetaking, email, and calendar stuff (as far as I know). He carries a laptop for everything else. The third will use it, as I said, for development work with Apple's Bluetooth keyboard. But, he has lamented the lack of true digitizer stylus input--an area that Apple has famously neglected over the years.

It seems to me that people are trying to use tablets where they'd use laptops instead in a lot of areas. This is Microsoft responding to a market need, not creating a solution for a non-existent problem.

Every time I make this point on Ars somebody responds the way you're responding. And, respectfully, you're missing my original point.

There are too many constraints on the form factor to do it the way you're describing. Your co-worker may feel that "it sucks" but the only way around that is to fantasize about an impossible device that is a tablet and yet has the capabilities of a laptop, and (as I tried to argue at the outset) that's impossible. Apple knew it was impossible and did something else, and thrived where everyone else had failed. Microsoft is now spectacularly failing to learn from their success.

I've been using my Sony VAIO Duo Pro for a while now. At work and at home. (I'm a verification engineer so I'm doing lots of programming but also work in Word/Excel, lots of Outlook, and occasionally need to take handwritten notes.)

So, I still don't see how the form factor doesn't work.

Another prime example of a meet in the middle compromise, that all reviews indicate is mediocre at everything:

"the VAIO Duo 11 slider is appealing in theory but disappointing in practice. Fact is, the Duo doesn't offer a thin enough design or long enough battery life to cut it as a tablet, and its keyboard is too cramped to make for a good Ultrabook."

Pretty much everything you describe is standard laptop work, + occasional need for written notes. Most people would be much better off in that scenario with a real laptop and a Moleskine.

It's a device for those of us who need to do stuff. The digitiser should be fantastic, and not hampered by the fact it runs an esoteric content creation OS like the Galaxy Note. There's enough power on tap to put it in the same boat as lower end ultrabooks, which is more than can be said for any ARM tablet.

OK, there are some flaws with the design - the kickstand isn't really suited to long work - but I'm sure someone will release a nice desktop arm/clamp that solves the long-term work problem.

If this thing had >5 hours of usable battery life, like a Macbook Air does, it would be absolutely fantastic. As it stands, it's definitely a compromise.

Let's also not forget that having multiple devices is a bit of a pain - the only real solution currently to tying them all together is cloud-based, which is not ideal for people that create content!

I have an iPad and a laptop. I use each of them every day (pretty much). When I travel, I bring both of them.

Would I like them both to be the same device? Sure, but it's not possible. The limits of current technology (processors, batteries, storage, screens, etc.) are in the way; the physical limitations of the devices are in the way (big vs. small screens; keyboards vs. touch vs. mouse vs. stylus) and the software's in the way (it's designed for a desktop interface and is built on 30 years' worth of desktop GUI traditions.

It's a tantalizing pipe dream, but it can't be done. Everyone who tries fails, and the only company who isn't failing at this began by abandoning this "impossible dream" and doing something more realistic.

It's a device for those of us who need to do stuff. The digitiser should be fantastic, and not hampered by the fact it runs an esoteric content creation OS like the Galaxy Note. There's enough power on tap to put it in the same boat as lower end ultrabooks, which is more than can be said for any ARM tablet.

OK, there are some flaws with the design - the kickstand isn't really suited to long work - but I'm sure someone will release a nice desktop arm/clamp that solves the long-term work problem.

If this thing had >5 hours of usable battery life, like a Macbook Air does, it would be absolutely fantastic. As it stands, it's definitely a compromise.

Let's also not forget that having multiple devices is a bit of a pain - the only real solution currently to tying them all together is cloud-based, which is not ideal for people that create content!

I am by profession a "content creator" but the inability to use this thing as a laptop renders it ill-suited to that purpose.

I'm also a hobbyist (sometime professional) software developer. But for that I would want at least an 84-key laptop keyboard.

I can believe that it's of particular interest to tablet-using graphics professionals. But I'm not one, and to be honest, that's hardly a mainstream market.

I can't seem to justify a surface pro now that I've seen other tablets with better specs. After CES, i'm more interested in dropping a little more money on a razer edge than this thing. Better graphics, more HDD space--a real keyboard dock!

M$ should have launched the two at the same time. I probably would have jumped and been explaining my purchase to myself right now. As it stands, I'm looking elsewhere, because there are some many other wares to look now.

The iPad only started as a "novelty" in terms of tech press and consumers who didn't yet understand what the device was all about and what it was capable of. Apple knew exactly what they were doing (just as they did three years before when Jobs said "Today, Apple re-invents the phone," and Ballmer and everyone else scoffed but it turned out to be literally true). Just because the pundits and analysts were confused doesn't mean that Apple was confused, or that the sales didn't skyrocket immediately. I'm saying that (by contrast) Microsoft doesn't really know what they're doing, since (as I said originally) this whole thing is ill-conceived; based on a misunderstanding of "the tablet market" (which is really just the iPad market).

And, you can say it's "round one," but if nobody buys these devices of Microsoft's there won't be many more rounds. They're really good at spending money without making money (XBox etc.) but even Microsoft has limits.

Exactly.

What Microsoft did here shows incredibly little faith and confidence in their own promising Modern née Metro interface. They call it "no compromises" but all I see is a product that hedges their bets at every turn. The design and execution of this product is living proof that journalists weren't the only confused ones here.

The difference is that Apple had the guts to put their money where their mouth is and commit balls-out to their vision. They didn't hedge their bets by sneaking in OSX and a traditional desktop Mac interface.